Venereal Diseases in New Zealand (1922) eBook

The Committee are of the opinion that by the strict
exercise of the provisions of section 111 of the Health
Act, 1920, much may be done to prevent introduction
of venereal diseases from overseas. They suggest,
however, that where any person so suffering is required
or permitted to attend a clinic he should be accompanied
by some responsible officer of the ship, or person
authorized by the shipping company concerned, and
that the question on the “Report of Master of
the Ship” defined by regulations—­“Are
you aware of the presence on board of any person suffering
from ... (b) venereal disease?”—­might
be strengthened by adopting the Australian quarantine
service equivalent viz., “Is there now
or has there been on board during the voyage any person
suffering from demonstrable syphilis in an active
condition, or other communicable disease?”

The evidence given does not show that the number of
venereal-diseases cases already in the Dominion is
greatly added to by the introduction of cases from
overseas. Since 1903 persons suffering from syphilis
have been “prohibited immigrants” within
the meaning of the Immigration Restriction Act.

SECTION 5.—­PROPHYLAXIS.

Before discussing this question it is desirable clearly
to distinguish between the procedures which are included
under this term. These are—­

(1.) The supply of drugs and appliances
which are made available for use by the individual
before exposure to infection. This may be described
as “anticipatory prophylaxis,” and has
commonly been designated the “packet system.”

The Committee condemn this procedure,
for these reasons: (i) That the system suggests
a moral sanction to vice; (ii) that the individual
is lulled into a false sense of security, and may
thereby be encouraged repeatedly to expose himself
to infection; (iii) that the individual may be
thereby deterred from seeking early advice or
treatment; (iv) that the drugs supplied may be used
for treating disease should it arise, and so delay
may result in seeking skilled treatment in the
early stages when it is likely to be most effective.

(2.) Treatment applied after exposure
to infection. This is called “early
treatment.” This term is inapplicable, as
a disease cannot be treated before it exists.
It is also likely to be confused with “abortive
treatment,” which implies treatment immediately
on the appearance of symptoms.

The evidence before the Committee shows
that this form of prophylaxis, if applied by
skilled persons and within a few hours of exposure,
is effective in preventing disease in a great majority
of the cases in which it is used.

The Inter-departmental Committee on Infectious Diseases
set up by the Ministry of Health in 1919 in connection
with demobilization, in a note on “Prophylaxis
against venereal disease,” reported among its